Adam Płachciak
ISSN 2071-789X
171
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Adam Płachciak, The Issue of International Development within Tony Blair’s
Policy of New Labour Party, Economics & Sociology, Vol. 6, No 2, 2013, pp.
171-179. DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.2013/6-2/15
Adam Płachciak
Department of Governing Quality
and Environment
Faculty Economics, Management
and Tourism in Jelenia Gora
Wroclaw University of Economics,
Poland
E-mail:
[email protected]
Received: May, 2013
1st Revision: July, 2013
Accepted: September, 2013
DOI: 10.14254/2071789X.2013/6-2/15
JEL Classification: P3, J0,
Z10
THE ISSUE OF INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TONY
BLAIR’S POLICY OF NEW LABOUR
PARTY
ABSTRACT. The purpose of this paper is to present the
phenomena and the main directions of Tony Blair’s
government policy on international development. His
political vision was significantly conscious about the need
to make the world’s development more equal.
Undoubtedly Blair’s involvement in the area of uneven
world’s development was directed by his interest in making
Britain more influential on the wide, international arena.
But it should be emphasized that UK under New Labour
Government was really prepared to reach the needs of the
poorest countries in the world.
Keywords: development, globalization, New Labour Party,
Millennium Development Goals, poverty, Africa.
Introduction
There has not been a British government that could ignore issues of international
development. The United Kingdom’s history, the Commonwealth associations, the reality of
free market economy, migrations, individual and personal connections, and most of all, a deep
concern of many citizens for humanitarian action can prove that fact. But still, at the
beginning of the last decade of the twentieth century the Britain’s Conservative Government
had been proving their traditional attitude towards the trade on global market and accepting
the idea of depth reduction for the poorest countries. In fact, it had not shown a meaningful
concern for the policy of international development. The main reason was their program of
aid which in real terms occurred to be slowly turning down. In some cases the government’s
policy relating to the issues of international development had been found to have acted not
completely legally. The Pergau Dam project in Malaysia might be a good example. It was
often called “the most controversial mission in the history of British aid”. The excessively
costly dam was financed with the money of British taxpayers in order to support a major arms
deal, despite the opposition raised by civil servants in the Foreign Office and the voice of
international community.
Actually, looking more broadly, neither UK nor other OECD countries would pay
enough attention to development issues at those times. This abandonment stimulated The
Development Assistance Committee within the OECD to work out some basic directions. In
1996 an important document was published under the title Shaping the Twenty – first Century.
The role of Development Cooperation (Shaping the Twenty…, 1996). During the general
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 6, No 2, 2013
Adam Płachciak
ISSN 2071-789X
172
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
election in 1997 the British Labour Party promised to make the issue of unequal development
one of the main targets of their international policy.
The following paper is an attempt to point out the main directions of the British New
Labour’s policy within the area of unequal development. The article has a descriptive
character and its method is based on the documents and the literature of the subject. The
structure and contents of the paper were built on published articles, books, party documents
and other resources. The notion of the New Labour Party is rather affiliated with Tony Blair’s
vision of social democracy in the UK.
Dilemmas of the world’s unequal development
It is an undeniable fact that the world is still facing a dangerous threat of unsustainable
development that is causing exploitation of natural resources, increased pollution and changes
in habitats. But it is also creating serious social problems that are being intensified by the
inequalities in health, wealth, education, and employment. Those damages usually risk the
poorest people at first. The following statistics show the facts of unequal global development.
Half of the world – over 3 billion people – live on less than $2.00 per day. 30,000 children die
each day because of poverty – almost 11 million children under the age of 5 each year. About
40 million people live with HIV and over 3 million die from AIDS each year; approximately
3,900 children die each day because of a lack of drinking water and sanitation. Global life
expectancy is 65 years compared with the UK average of 78. The Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) of the poorest 48 nations (a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of
the world’s richest 3 countries combined (First Steps Towards…, 2006, p. 10; compare with
Wolińska, 2008, p. 243).1
These problems are not only ones faced by the world and which affect the poorest
countries the most. Finite resources such as fossil fuels and finite water are also experiencing
problems. Our lifestyle and consumption threaten the very planet that supports us. It has been
proven that in order to support present consumption, we each need 50 liters of water a day for
drinking, washing, cooking and sanitation. In 1990s over 1 billion people did not even have
that. And still, by 2025 two thirds of the population will live in water stressed countries. We
are losing 6% per year of our freshwater ecosystems and 4% per year of our marine
ecosystems. We have already fished to the limits or beyond in two thirds of the marine
ecosystems and altered the ecology of a vast range of marine species. Concerning the
condition of world’s species about 70% of our ecosystems are seeing a decline in biodiversity
(First Steps Towards…, 2006, p. 11).
Almost all of us can admit that growing inequalities in the world have become a
pressing issue. Even business leaders who came to Davos in 1999 identified this problem as
one of the biggest threats to the world economy. But since the Summit in Rio de Janeiro in
1992 poverty in the world has been still growing up. It is true that global inequalities are less
visible and some people even say that they should not be the case of public policy. But, if we
are a part of global human community, moral concern over unjust inequalities cannot be
limited to national borders. This is especially important when the policies adopted in one
country have repercussions in another country. Supporting globalization while turning a blind
eye to global equality concerns is an increasingly anachronistic approach to the challenges
facing international community. If the public investment can play an important role –
equipping us with the abilities we need to work our way out of poverty, this might happen on
a global level, too. International aid is the equivalent of a redistributive fiscal transfer
mechanism with a potential to affect change, for instance, through investments in health,
1
This data shows the figures reflecting the results of unequal development at the beginning of the first decade of
the 21st century.
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 6, No 2, 2013
Adam Płachciak
ISSN 2071-789X
173
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
education and infrastructure. Similarly, international trade practices can open – or close –
opportunities for poor countries and their citizens to capture a bigger share of the economic
pie (Human Development Report…, 2005, p. 39).
Taking under consideration an axiological point of view, there are two possible ways
to conceive this scarcity as our moral obligation. One might assign a positive position to us,
which is founded on the fact that we could improve conditions of those living in poor
circumstances. Since they are suffering and we are better off, we should share some of our
own time, energy and wealth to help them. The second option refers to the view of negative
responsibility entailed on us. This assumption is based on the conviction that we in fact
participate, and even profit from, unjust and coercive imposition of severe poverty (Pogge,
1998, p. 502). Yet, if we think correctly, there is no excuse for doing nothing to make the
world more equal and just. Once even Charles Darwin wrote to his native Britain: “If the
misery of our poor be caused not by laws of nature, but by our own institutions, great is our
sin” (Quoted in: Gould, 1991, p. 19).2 It should be noted that the case we are talking of is not
about giving help to those who are just poor. We consider those who had been born into
different social circumstances, that would always create additional constraints to lead healthy,
happy, and productive lives as the rest of us. The root cause of their suffering is a bad social
starting position, including the social context into which they are born, which does not give
them much of a chance to become anything but poor vulnerable, and dependent – unable to
give their children a better start than they had had themselves. It makes sense to call those
people “radically deprived”. They do not merely lack what they need to lead a fulfilling life
but that what they need is withheld from them through human agency. These people are not
just poor and often starving, but they are being impoverished and starved by our common
institutional arrangements, which inescapably shape their lives. As the more powerful and
advanced participants in the global framework, we deprive them of what they need, because –
whether purposefully or not – we put this framework upon them rather than suggest
reasonable institutional solution that would not generate such severe and widespread poverty
(Pogge, 1999, p. 506).
Considering those facts it seems that the promoters of the dependency theory are right.
They argue that poor nations have always provided natural resources, cheap labour, old
technologies, and – the most important – markets for developed countries, without which the
latter could not have the opportunity to obtain the standard of living they enjoy. Dependency
theory tries to prove that the existence of poverty within the nations in the periphery is not
due to their not being integrated into the world system, but rather how they are integrated into
the system. The poorer nations are locked within a detrimental economic system. They
depend on the rich for the little work that is available to them. On the other hand this situation
creates a barrier from the nation growing independently. Taking into account the future
perspective, poor nations have no possible opportunity to improve their quality of life
(Wallerstein, 2004; Amin, 1976).
It has been often pointed out that contemporary global economy needs to be radically
transformed (Korten, 2006; Korten 2002; Amin, 2004; Shiva, 2005). There is a growing
group of activists and theorists who claim that a “new capitalism manifesto” is needed to
make capitalist development and growth more socially just and environmentally sustainable
(Haque, 2011). Unequal character of capitalism expansion, that cannot be overcome by the
mechanisms within its own structure, generally requires that the world would be established
on the foundations of alternative bases – which is social system. Such a perspective was
proposed, among others, by Tony Blair and his New Labour Party.
2
This statement is remarkable especially when expressed by C. Darwin, because as we know he believed that
human life should be a competitive struggle for survival.
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 6, No 2, 2013
Adam Płachciak
ISSN 2071-789X
174
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
The British New Labour’s contribution to international development
The story of the New Labour’s policy concerning international development starts
with the Foreign Policy Review, carried out by the Labour Party in 1994 – 1996, under the
leadership of Robin Cook, together with Joan Lester as the shadow spokesmen on the matters
of aid. The authors of this review emphasized, among others, the urgent need to establish a
new department under a cabinet minister with a responsibility to promote international
development. A similar perspective, designed generally to eliminate the use of aid for
political and commercial ends, had been included within the Labour’s previous manifestos in
opposition (Inspired by the work of the Ministry for Oversees Development (MOD), and
established by Horald Wilson in 1964. Later on the MOD was restructured, but remained a
part of the Foreign Ministry).
When the general election approached in 1997, Tony Blair considered introducing
again a separate Department of State. He asked Clare Short, the shadow International
Development spokesmen, if his decision was justified. After reviewing the practice in other
countries, consulting leading development think-tanks, and taking advice from the Permanent
Secretary of the ODA – Sir John Vereker – she was persuaded that the proposal for creating a
new department under a cabinet minister is reasonable. The Labour Party election manifesto
from 1997 stated: In government we will strengthen and restructure the British aid
programme and bring development issues back into the mainstream of government decisionmaking. A Cabinet Minister will lead a new department of international development. We will
shift aid resources towards programmes that help the poorest people in the poorest countries.
We reaffirm the UK’s commitment to the 0,7 per cent UN aid target and in government
Labour will start to reverse the decline in UK aid spending (New Labour Because Britain
Deserves Better, 2000, p. 381).
On 3 May 1997 a new Department for International Development (DFID) was
introduced. In consequence of this decision, the Foreign Office lost control over a large slice
of its budget. Clare Short became the Secretary of State for the new department. Under her
leadership, DFID led the way in global development policy, and people queued up to work
there. At the start, under Short’s supervision DFID remained a sort of nongovernmental
organization inside government and sometimes that situation caused significant problems.
However, it gave Britain a meaningful reach into developing world (Blair, 2010, p. 24).
In October 1997 Blair’s government issued the white paper World Poverty: A
Challenge for the 21st Century to define the route of the British international development
policy. The authors of the document emphasized: This White Paper sets out the Government’s
policies to achieve the sustainable development of this planet. It is first, and the most
importantly, about the single greatest challenge that the world faces – eliminating poverty. It
is about ensuring that the poorest people in the world benefit as we move towards a new
global society. It is about creating partnerships with developing countries and their people,
on the bases of specific and achievable targets, to bring that about (Short, 1997, p. 4). It was
expected that Labour government would play a leading role in making Britain as an example
how to reach the needs of people living in developing world. Blair believed that the most
important task was to set up internationally agreed policies and principles that would promote
sustainable development. Encouraging environmental conservation was also a significant
reason. At the beginning a meaningful role in shaping the British vision of international
development played the UN Resolution issued in 1996 (see: Shaping the Twenty-First
Century…, 1996). Its key target were:
1) Reducing by one-half in the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015.
2) Achieving the universal primary education in all countries by 2015.
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 6, No 2, 2013
Adam Płachciak
ISSN 2071-789X
175
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
3) Making demonstrable progress towards gender equality and empowering women by
eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2015.
4) Reducing by two-thirds the mortality rates for infants and children under age 5 and
reducing by three-fourths in maternal mortality, all by 2015.
5) Accessing through the primary health-care system to reproduce health service for all
individuals of appropriate ages as soon as possible and no later than the year 2015.
6) Implementation of national strategies for sustainable development in all countries by
2005 – to ensure that current trends in the loss of environmental resources are
effectively reversed at global and national levels by 2015.
In constructing the policy for international development, the authors of the white
paper World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century paid special attention to the idea of
sustainable development. They emphasized that most international institutions agree that
sustainable development requires interdependent relations between economic, social and
environmental dimensions. Three points of the Rio Declaration from 1992 seem to be
important: eradicating poverty as a requirement for sustainable development (Principle 5);
treating environmental protection as a part of the development process (and sustainable
development in general) (Principle 4); considering a vital role of women within
environmental management and development, especially their participation in social and
economic life (Principle 20) (World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century…, 1997,
p. 18).
It was also pointed out that sustainable development requires the management and
maintenance of different sorts of “capital” which support human well-being.3 The authors of
the white paper emphasized that it is important to achieve economic and social changes,
underlying policies that can be sustained through the long term. Agenda 21, Programme for
Action from UN Conference, call for countries to have national strategies for sustainable
development. According to the authors of this white paper the new established Department for
International Development would be working through its bilateral and multilateral
programmes, but also collectively with other government departments and non-governmental
institutions (NGOs). British government promised to pursue this goal through (World
Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century, 1997, p. 19):
1) Building development partnership with poorer countries.
2) Working more closely with the private and voluntary sectors, and the research
community.
3) Working with and influencing multilateral development organizations.
4) Working with other government departments to promote consistent policies affecting
poorer countries.
5) Using knowledge and resources effectively and efficiently.
Those general goals were based on specific objectives such as policies and actions that
promote sustainable livelihoods. It was promised that the British government would support
sound policies for economic growth in developing countries. A strong emphasize was put on
the development of efficient and well-regulated markets, good governance, realization of
human rights, prevention and resolution of conflicts. According to the authors of the
document the better education, health and opportunities for poor people seemed to play
unquestionable role in making the world more equal. A special importance was focused on
improving universal primary education, guaranteeing a basic health care for all, including
reproductive services and lowering child and maternal mortality, and supplying safe drinking
water, food security, emergency and humanitarian needs. Of course the protection and better
3
It is usually pointed out the following sorts of capitals: created capital – including physical infrastructure,
buildings, machinery and equipment; natural capital – the environment and natural resources; human capital –
human skills and capacity; social capital – strong social relationships and institutions.
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 6, No 2, 2013
Adam Płachciak
ISSN 2071-789X
176
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
management of the natural and physical environment were seriously considered (World
Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century, 1997, p. 19).
However, the work of DFID and its Secretary of State – Clare Short – was not the
main influences on the British international development policy. Both Gordon Brown and
Tony Blair also used their own connections and networks for increasing a number of specific
initiatives in this area. Brown used his contacts from the International Monetary and Finance
Committee, of which he was the chair from 1999, or the G7 meetings that played a
fundamental position in promoting solutions to the depth problems for poor countries. For
Tony Blair the key stage was the succession of G7/G8 Summits. But the most meaningful
were his personal relations with leaders of developing countries, particularly those of
Commonwealth. He had good and longstanding links with Thabo Mbeki, who replaced
Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa. From 2001 they increasingly worked together
to build up a new approach to development matters in Africa, which was to be more African
“achievement”, not so much depended on donors. They even wrote joint article for The
Guardian in September 2001 concerning problems which were then called the “New Africa
Initiative” (Manning, 2007, p. 563).
In 2000, as a result of a failed WTO meeting in Seattle the previous year, the Labour
Government issued the second white paper which supposed to set out how development
policies could use globalization to work for poor (Eliminating World Poverty: Making
Globalization Work for Poor, 2005). This same tradition was maintained in the third white
paper published in 2006 (Eliminating World Poverty: Making Governance Work for Poor,
2006).
Undoubtedly The Millennium Development Goals – which were agreed to at the
United Nations Millennium Submit in September 2000 – played the key role to further
projects and achievements of the UK’s Department for International Development and of the
wider UK Government. The Millennium Declaration, signed by representatives of 189 nations
during New York UN Submit, recognized that the responsibility for development falls to both
developed and developing countries. It received a set of eight mutually reinforcing goals as
the focus for the global development agenda, with 18 associated targets at 48 indicators
against which to measure progress.
The UK Government planned to accelerate progress towards MDGs through
substantially increasing the overseas development assistance budget and calling for an
immediate increase of resources through International Finance Facility. Beyond that, Blair’s
cabinet promised to strengthen activity at the country level and give much bigger support to
the European Council. Obviously a reasonable action was to build meaningful partnerships
with other donors (The UK’s Contribution to Achieving the Millennium Goals, 2005, p. 8).
The clear focus on the final elimination of poverty in poor countries – and Britain’s
contribution to it – was presented in The International Development and Cooperation Act of
2002. This document made it illegal for the aid programme to be used for any purpose other
than reduction of poverty or humanitarian relief. It is worthwhile to notice that British aid rose
from 2000 onwards to the levels similar to those of France and Germany, from the position
more than half their weight when the New Labour Government assume the office. In 2005,
for the first time, UK’s aid exceeded both France and Germany, and in 2006 it rose above that
of Japan (see: Manning, 2007, p. 257).
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 6, No 2, 2013
Adam Płachciak
ISSN 2071-789X
177
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Figure 1. Five “top donors”, 1992 – 2006
Source: Author’s graph based on (Manning, 2007, p. 257).
The G8 Summit at Gleneagles Hotel in Auchterarder, Scotland, played a meaningful
role both to Blair and Brown in the area of New Labour’s policy of international
development. Traditionally, the host country of the G8 Summit prepares the agenda for
negotiations which is primarily initiated by the joint work of multinational civil servants
weeks before the summit starts. It usually leads to a declaration that all countries can sign. As
host, the UK proposed to focus this G8 summit on the issues of global climate changes and
the problem of uneven economic development in Africa. The British site tried to persuade the
international committee to reduce the debts of the poorest countries and significantly increase
aid. Before the Gleneagles meeting in February 2005, Gordon Brown persuaded G7
representatives to mobilize mutual efforts so that decisions which might be made at the
summit in July would bring developed countries closer to achieve financing package of the
Millennium Development Goals. At that time the G7 Finance Ministers were prepared to talk
in terms of real increase in ODA between 2004 and 2010 of 2 billion dollars, but still with
decisions awaited from Canada and the USA. It was the main intention to build strong
consensus on the road to the G8 Summit’s conclusion of a planned 50 billion dollars increase
in aid between the two dates. In 2006 the British government decided to allocate over 4,4
billion pounds on international development and humanitarian aid. Out of that amount, 57%
was distributed individually to particular poor countries; 38% was distributed to international
nongovernment organizations; and the rest of the aid was planned to cover the costs of the
projects. The main beneficiaries included Ghana, Mozambik, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda.
Financial support of the United Kingdom helped 3 million children from Malawi and Kenya
start regular primary education in 2006. Because of the British financial aid of medical system
in Zambia, over 6 million people had a free access to the health care at that time. In 2007,
over 1 million people were given supplies with the medical supplies against AIDS and HIV.
That same year the British government – supporting UNICEF – reached 400,000 poor
orphans in Zimbabwe. And working closely with the United Nations World Food Program
(UNWFP) it could supply food to 1,6 million inhabitants of that country (read more:
Michałowska, 2008, p. 417).
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 6, No 2, 2013
Adam Płachciak
ISSN 2071-789X
178
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Another demand of the G8 Summit was to move forward initiatives on reducing and
finally eliminating global warming. Blair planned to achieve a goal beyond the Kyoto
Protocol by including the most significant developing countries, such as India, China,
Mexico, Brazil and South Africa within the international agreement. This depended on the
transfer of clean technologies in exchange for commitments concerning reduction of
greenhouse gases. International development and climate change policy seemed, to the
organizers of the G8 Summit, obvious and mutual. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
not only saves the world against global warming but also eliminates dangerous development
threats in poor countries. Commissioned by the British government, The Stern Review was
crucial to changing the international atmosphere and managed to take the climate change
agenda out of the marginalized sphere of environmentalism. It is worthwhile to notice the
Labour Party had already decided to accept the Kyoto resolutions. They promised to reduce
the levels of CO2 by 20% by2020 from the level compared with 1990 and reduce it by 60% by
2050.
The G8 Summit agenda, which was unquestionably connected to the unusually good
political skills of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown could not actually work to “make
poverty history”, but it was a big step towards building an international dialogue on how to
solve the biggest threats to the contemporary world. The proposals at Gleneagles could
confronted the global politics of unequal development (On the G8 Summit at Gleneagles read
more in: Payne, 2006).
Conclusions
Tony Blair’s government policy between 1997 and 2007 was a meaningful step
towards giving a coherent push to the UK’s role in international development. It is obvious
that he and his New Labour Party were conscious of the continuous pressure from poorer
members of the ever more present “global village”. At that time Britain played a significant
role in challenging the other developed countries to make a visible progress towards “global
public goods”, from climate change to dealing with risks of uneven development in the world
and avoidance of “bads” such as terrorism and failed states. As Prime Minister, Tony Blair
left a strengthened UK voice in international development. His vision was strongly supported
by the “third Way and its vision to protect social justice. Equality and individual freedom may
conflict, but egalitarian measures would increase the range of freedoms available to
individuals, too (read more on the Third Way and its values: Giddens, 1999).
The willingness to build a development agenda was unusually important for opening
much bigger opportunities to involve civil society in policy discussion. It should be
emphasize that Blair’s agenda on international development was qualitatively different from
policies of previous the British governments. There are still some aspects to be developed
such as Blair’s vision of humanitarian intervention as a part of his international development
policy or the fact of the UK’s involvement into Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It would require
additional consideration.
References
Amin, S. (2004), Zmurszały kapitalizm, Wydawnictwo Akademickie Dialog, Warszawa.
Amin, S. (1976), Unequal development: An Essey on the Social Formations of Peripgerial
Capitalism, Monthly Review Press, New York.
Blair, T. (2010), A Journey, Hutchinson, London.
Eliminating World Powerty: A Challange for the 21st Century (1997), Department for
International Development, London.
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 6, No 2, 2013
Adam Płachciak
ISSN 2071-789X
179
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalization Work for Poor (2000), Department for
International Development, London.
Eliminating World Poverty: Making Governance Work for Poor (2006), Department for
International Development, London.
First Steps Towards Sustainability. A Sustainable Development Strategy for Northern Ireland
(2006), Northern Ireland Executive, Belfast.
Giddens, A. (1999), The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy, Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Gould, S., J. (1991), The Moral State of Tahiti – and of Darwin, Natural History, 10.
Haque, M., S. (2011), The New Capitalist Manifesto, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston.
Human Development Report 2005. International Cooperation at a Crossroads – Aid, Trade
and Security in an Unequal World (2005), United Nations Development Programme,
New York.
Korten, D., C. (2006), The Great Turning: From Empire to the Earth Community, Kumarian
Press, Bloomfield.
Korten, D., C. (2002), Świat po kapitalizmie – alternatywy dla globalizacji, Stowarzyszenie
Obywatel, Łódź.
Kovalenko, Y., M. (2013), Standards within the Code of Qood Practice for financial
activities, Actual Problems of Economics, 148(10), pp. 8-14.
Mannig, R. (2007), Development, [in:] A. Seldon, Blair’s Britain 1997 2007, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Michałowska, G. (2008), Problemy ochrony praw człowieka w Afryce, Wydawnictwo
Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa.
New Labour Because Britain Deserves Better (2000), [in:] I. Dale (ed.), Labour Party
General Election Manifestos, 1900 – 1997, Routledge, London and New York.
Paine, A. (2006), Blair, Brown and the Gleneagles Agenda, International Affairs, 82 (5).
Pogge, Th., W. (1998), A Global Resources Divided, [in:] D. A. Crocker, T. Linden, Ethics of
Consumption. The Good Life, Justice and Global Stewarship, Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers Inc, Oxford.
Shaping the Twenty-First Century: The Role of Development Co-operation (1996), OECD,
Paris.
Shiva, V. (2005), Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, Peace, Zed Books, London.
Short, B. (1997), Forward by the Secretary of State for International Development, [in:]
Eliminating World Powerty: A Challange for the 21st Century, Department for
International Development, London.
Sergi, Bruno S. and Qerim Qerimi (2012), The Effects of Economic Freedom on Institutional
Performance in the Western Balkans Countries, International Journal of Business
Governance and Ethics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 18-36.
The UK’s Contribution to Achieving the Millennium Goals (2005), Department for
International Development, London.
Wallerstein, I. (2004), World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction, Duke University Press,
Durham.
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 6, No 2, 2013